Looking for a journalist willing to do a story

One of our regular commenters here, BrokenSoldier, has a story to tell — an all-too-common tale of our government’s neglect of the men and women sent out to fight, and returning damaged to a bureaucracy that isn’t willing to do the right thing and support them. If anyone out there is willing to help get this story out, here’s an opportunity — it’s practically written out for you. This is a broken soldier’s story:

This is a request for help. Disabled veterans are being treated as if they are a burden on the government’s checkbook, and the government is getting away with it, mainly because the situation is so far out of the public’s collective eye that the military can quite effectively sweep it under the rug. Politicians are using our sacrifices as political capital in front of the nation, while the Army medical system turns around to our face and disdainfully treats us as if we are asking for something we do not deserve. All we want is the care we were promised, and all we are getting is organized resistance from the military medical bureaucracy. In some cases, this resistance amounts to the pure manipulation – and even alteration – of the medical regulations, for the sole purpose of reducing the amount of money the Army has to pay disabled vets upon their separation. I have turned to this kind of appeal, frankly, because I am out of options. I believe that
the only thing that can even begin to fix a problem such as this one is true exposure to the bright lights of public scrutiny.

When wounded soldiers comes home, they have to go through an evaluation process in which a panel of Army doctors determines what their final disability rating will be. If they decide that the soldier rates less than 30%, then they can separate that soldier with merely a severance check, and never dole out another dollar to him or her again. Should the rating be above 30%, the Army is required to medically retire that soldier, and send him or her a monthly check after they leave the service. In principle, this makes sense. But this is being abused by those doctors, in that they are intentionally low-balling wounded vets in order to get them under the 30% ceiling and get them out, for obvious reasons of saving money. Just in my case alone, I have seen doctors lie on official reports about what I told them, make childishly snide comments about the appeals that I have written to the Physician Evaluation Board (PEB), and one doctor even suggested that a
previous diagnosis was invalid simply because I was “fine” on the day he saw me. (And I have proof – to include hard copies of documents showing the offenses.) This does not stop with the low-level doctors, by any means. The Army PEBs operate on instructions given to them by their command, and one in particular is very telling. Since soldiers began coming home with serious concussion injuries, the Army medical community has seen fit to publish instructions to its PEBs concerning certain ratings and how they are to be ‘interpreted’ pertaining to veterans’ disability claims. One of them that I ran directly into deals with the occurrence of migraine headaches, which many veterans with concussion injuries suffer from, and how they are to be viewed. The schedule that lists ratings that are to be applied states that for a 50% rating, migraines must meet the frequency requirement of at least two pper month, and the severity must be prostrating. After
veterans began receiving this rating for their complications from IED-induced concussions, an instruction to physicians was published informing them that from then on, the word ‘prostrating’ was not to be interpreted as it is defined, but rather for migraines to be considered prostrating for rating purposes, the soldier must have stopped and sought immediate, emergency medical attention. Due to the fact that it is very difficult for someone laying prostrate from a migraine to get up and make it to the ER, you can imagine how well this worked in reducing the number of veterans that received disability ratings for their migraines.

And aside from the failings of the rating process, once the soldier is done with that, then there is the incompetent bureaucracy within the ranks of those handling retired service members to deal with. I was retired in January, but did not see a single cent of my retirement money until June. And when it did begin, taxes were being deducted – which shouldn’t happen, because combat wounded vets get tax exemption from their disability checks. After getting that fixed, I recently discovered that I have absolutely no medical coverage whatsoever – which I found out while trying to get my prescriptions filled – because my retirement documents never got to the agency responsible for administering my care as a medical retiree. The incompetence of those that handled my retirement file ensured that the necessary paperwork failed to reach almost all of the necessary agencies. And I am by no means the only one this type of injustice is happening to, but instead
it is a widespread occurrence. The reason for this is that once the soldier leaves the service and begins the fight for his or her benefits, it is simply that soldier against the entire framework of the Army bureaucracy, and that is far from a fair fight. (They do allow you a liaison in order to to help you navigate the system, but if mine was any indication, this is more of a burden than a help – in asking her to participate in a conference call to discuss why I disagreed with my initial rating of 10%, she resisted and actually said to me, “I’m not here to hold your hand through this.”) So I have ended up in a position quite familiar to veterans – broke, living with my parents, in debt up to my ears from the months without income, and having no consistent medical coverage.

So, if you read through this and it seems wrong to you, especially if it makes you a bit angry, then I’m asking for your help. The only thing that will fix this problem is to shine a spotlight on what is happening, because once that happens, the freedom of action that the Army medical community has enjoyed in bullying the wounded soldiers applying for disability will be gone. Once the public is cognizant of exactly what has been done to the veterans the government so profusely praises for their sacrifice, their hypocrisy will be laid bare. If you know anyone – journalist or not – that will take this story and tell it to the public, please let me know. The above injustices are only the tip of the iceberg, even in my case, and I have documentation of many more transgressions.

A disabled vet has fought far too much already to have to continue to fight with their own government like this when they get home. In this case, it is the soldier who is looking to citizen for help with this fight.

If you’re willing to help get the word out, contact Gary E. Ford.

I guess ‘eponymous’ wasn’t on the LSAT

Nick Matzke, one of the world’s leading experts in detecting absurdities in creationist texts, has discovered a real howler from Casey Luskin. Luskin is complaining that he, Junior Woodchuck lawyer for an intellectually bankrupt propaganda mill, can’t find the wrist bones in Tiktaalik when Neil Shubin, world-class paleontologist, is directly describing them. This is, admittedly, a fairly high-level discussion by Shubin, but it’s amusing that Luskin isn’t tripped up by the science — it’s his command of the English language that lets him down.

When discussing Tiktaalik’s “wrist,” Shubin says he “invites direct
comparisons” between Tiktaalik’s fin and a true tetrapod limb. Surely
this paper must have a diagram comparing the “wrist”-bones of
Tiktaalik to a true tetrapod wrist, showing which bones correspond. So
again I searched the paper. And again he provides no such diagram
comparing the two. So we are left to decipher his jargon-filled
written comparison in the following sentence by sentence analysis:

1. Shubin et al.: “The intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik have
homologues to eponymous wrist bones of tetrapods with which they share
similar positions and articular relations.” (Note: I have labeled the
intermedium and ulnare of Tiktaalik in the diagram below.)

Translation: OK, then exactly which “wrist bones of tetrapods” are
Tiktaalik’s bones homologous to? Shubin doesn’t say. This is a
technical scientific paper, so a few corresponding “wrist bone”-names
from tetrapods would seem appropriate. But Shubin never gives any.

“Waaaaah,” whines Luskin, “Shubin didn’t tell us the names of the corresponding tetrapod wrist bones!”

Only he did. I guess “eponymous” is too difficult a word for a Junior Woodchuck.

Shubin is saying that there are bones with the same positions and articulations with neighboring bones in tetrapods and Tiktaalik, and that they have the same names. They have a small wrist bone that articulates with the ulna called the ulnare, and they have another bone called the intermedium. They have the same names.

Here’s a nice diagram, color-coded and everything, just for Casey. Here are some fish:

i-23bc14d239d04710b9dcbfda718de4ae-fins_patterns_sm.jpg
(click for larger image)

And some tetrapods:

i-87e1865d9385b162cdbae6ca7cddb1fd-fin-limb_2006_sm.jpg
(click for larger image)

These clowns at the DI would be much funnier if more people would realize that they are performance artists with little talent and no expertise, except in lying and tripping over their own shoes.

Carl Zimmer has also noted Luskin’s absurd error.

Oh, crap, no…not another poll

You people keep sending them to me, and as long as I’m swamped with work they’re at least a quick and easy blog post. So forgive me, but when I saw the results on this poll that asks,
“Should prayer and the Ten Commandments be allowed in schools?“, I couldn’t resist.

92% say yes. I know that not all Kentuckians are that dumb. Help their image by adjusting these poll results to something more sensible.

Lenski gives Conservapædia a lesson

Once again, Richard Lenski has replied to the goons and fools at Conservapædia, and boy, does he ever outclass them. For a quick outline of the saga, read this summary at A Candid World; basically, Andy Schlafly has been demanding every bit of data from Richard Lenski’s work on the evolution of E. coli, despite the fact that Schlafly doesn’t have the background to understand it and doesn’t have any plan for what he would do with it if he got it. Lenski has been polite and helpful in his replies; his first response is a model for how to explain difficult science to a bullying ideologue. Now his second response is available, and while he has clearly lost some patience and is unequivocal in denouncing their bad faith efforts to discredit good science, he still gives an awfully good and instructional discussion.

I’ve put the whole thing below the fold, in case you’d rather not click through to that wretched hive of pretentious villainy at Conservapædia.

[Read more…]

Michael Medved says something dumb

Did someone declare this National Flaming Racist Idiot week, and I just didn’t notice until now? You have got to read Michael Medved’s latest foray into pseudoscience: he has declared American superiority to be genetic, encoded in our good old American DNA. Because our ancestors were immigrants, who were risk-takers, who were selected for their energy and aggressiveness. Oh, except for those who are descended from slaves.

The idea of a distinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA might also help to explain our most persistent and painful racial divide – between the progeny of every immigrant nationality that chose to come here, and the one significant group that exercised no choice in making their journey to the U.S. Nothing in the horrific ordeal of African slaves, seized from their homes against their will, reflected a genetic predisposition to risk-taking, or any sort of self-selection based on personality traits.

But, he hastens to add, modern African-American genetics have been leavened with the genes of recent, self-selected immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, so their unfortunate stay-at-home genes have a “less decisive influence”.

As is usual for Medved, a dullard incapable of any kind of thought beyond the superficial, he doesn’t think his thesis through. Wouldn’t this imply that Moslem immigrants to Europe, with their risk-taking willingness to move to new environments, are their true hope for the future? That the old blue-bloods of this country are less fit than, say, the Nisei? And if the descendants of African slaves are not successful go-getters because their arrival was coerced, what about the immigrants who were fleeing religious persecution, or all the Americans who are descended from indentured servants? Are there no successful entrepreneurs in Europe or Asia or Africa? Should we give extra bonus points to the descendants of nomadic tribes of warriors, like the Germans? It’s a very peculiarly narrow view of a kind of simplistic genetic determinism that ignores the complexities and the varieties of ways people got here to promote a ridiculous premise.

And it just gets sillier.

Senators Obama, Clinton and other leaders who seek to enlarge the scope of government face more formidable obstacles than they realize. Their desire to impose a European-style welfare state and a command-and-control economy not only contradicts our proudest political and economic traditions, but the new revelations about American DNA suggest that such ill-starred schemes may go against our very nature.

Uh, what? Republican policies are now part of our genetic nature, and the Democrats will be defeated by our capitalist genes?

This is Michael Medved of the Discovery Institute, an organization that has recently been raving about the evils of eugenics and the soulless Darwinian view of nature. Yet here he is, spouting off the kind of smug, invalid, pseudo-biological jingo that belongs in the Gilded Age and would be comfortable in the mouth of a robber baron trying to justify a war in Latin America. It’s nothing but handwaving rationalizations for an intrinsic superiority to our tribe, with a complete absence of evidence.

An hour of radio inanity

I’ve tuned into KKMS, although to be honest, I lost all respect for these evangelical radio cretins when they had that Simmons “debate” and left me out. We’ll have to see if their guest’s attempts to criticize atheists in their absence will be as effective.

I’m trying to grade exams while simultaneously listening — it’s like listening with half my brain tied behind my back.

The host claims that it is important to understand the perspective of the “New” Atheists…so why are they inviting this Aikman clown on, instead of an actual atheist?

Aikman claims the atheists are bringing “pestilence”, and claims that we only pick on Christians (what? What about Hitchens?) because Christians are so good and kind and generous and won’t blow them up. We’re already in stupid territory: the atheists criticize Christians because they are the dominant element in our culture.

We get some whining about how Christianity is portrayed in the media (ubiquitously?), and an uncontested claim that the religion is a benefit to society.

So far, I’m still waiting to hear a real criticism of atheism and atheists.

Oh, yeah…”I used to be an atheist”. I knew he’d say that eventually. It’s amazing how 99% of the evangelical world seems to have been godless, once.

Now we get another predictable claim: atheists have done all the evil of the 20th century, and communists and Pol Pot get dragged out.

Another predictable point: there is no basis for atheist morality. To which I always wonder, if there is no god, then there must be no basis for Christian morality either.

These guys are completely clueless. This isn’t an exercise in learning more about the New Atheists, it’s 3 ignoramuses making up stuff with one another.

Good — August Berkshire called in to criticize, and hit them with a good question: if god is a source of morality, what is the Christian position on the death penalty? On contraception? Would you believe the Aikman clown tried to claim that the death penalty is not a moral issue? The DJs tried to run away and claim that their belief in the crucifixion is the core of their belief…which is not a moral issue, either. Aikman tries to dig up Hitler, and claims everything is about the basis of morality, while avoiding the simple fact that Christianity does not provide simple moral guidance.

Berkshire throws their own claim that the ten commandments are the basis of morality by pointing out that the punishments for violating most of those rules was death. When they try to duck and weave by saying they don’t follow the Old Testament rules anymore, Berkshire hammers on the obvious fact that there has been a rather substantial change in the treatment of moral issues.

Another caller: Jeff from Maple Grove, who babbles a bunch of apologetics for the Old Testament. God Hates Sin. He didn’t change his mind! Dear dog, I’m feeling my brain leaking away as I listen to these idiots.

Now Damon in Las Vegas calls in. Points out that atheists can’t disprove the Christian god, but Christians can’t disprove the other gods, but dismiss them — how do they do that? Aikman answers (?) that Christians believe they can have a relationship with god mediated through Jesus, and that the historical evidence for Jesus is strong, and then makes up a bunch of bullshit about evidence for the resurrection (making it up all the way). Then he claims again that he used to be an atheist.

He doesn’t answer the question!

Bob calls in to address August, and again, he claims god didn’t change, the people did. August clearly hit a nerve with that one.

Tony (Toni?) calls in to explain that she lost her Catholic faith and is an atheist, and her old associates all think she’s going to burn in hell. She asks how a loving and just god could do that. Aikman chickens out and refuses to answer. The DJs try to dig into her Catholic background, and then basically tells her to accept it, and that you have to be perfect to live forever, and that’s Jesus’s gift…they’re essentially telling her that she gets to burn in Hell. Aikman butts in and tells her to read Strobel. Strobel! That guy is awful.

I must apologize for mentioning this radio show to everyone. It’s pathetic. It’s three buffoons babbling on the air. I didn’t learn a thing about atheism (how could I? They had no knowledge between them), but I was reminded once again how foolish theology is.

When will Maj. Freddy J. Welborn be court-martialed?

I think he’s due, but he’s not the only one. It’s like our entire army is being turned into a pocket theocracy.

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Ugh. Threats from a commanding officer over what our soldiers believe? Not that anyone will chastise him; the conversion of our military into a goon squad for the believers is coming along too far for that.

But Mikey Weinstein, a retired Air Force judge advocate general and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the official statistics masked the great number of those who do not report violations for fear of retribution. Since the Air Force Academy scandal began in 2004, Mr. Weinstein said, he has been contacted by more than 5,500 service members and, occasionally, military families about incidents of religious discrimination. He said 96 percent of the complainants were Christians, and the majority of those were Protestants.

Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.” After getting the complainants’ unit and command information, Mr. Weinstein said, he calls his contacts in the military to try to correct the situation.

“Religion is inextricably intertwined with their jobs,” Mr. Weinstein said. “You’re promoted by who you pray with.”

“Promoted by who you pray with”…that’s scary. We’ve got selection going on in the armed forces for uniformity of religious belief, and worst of all, it’s for the kind of religious belief endorsed by loud Christianist wackaloons.

Disappointed again

Somewhere south of San Francisco, there is a billboard that declares that there is physical proof of the existence of a god, and which suggests that you read their website. A reader sent it to me, and being the sort of open minded fellow who doesn’t believe in any gods but is happy to look at any evidence someone might find, I looked.

I’m still an atheist. You can stop here if you want.

[Read more…]

The height of anti-abortion logic

It’s been yet another long, long day — I was one of many invited speakers at a conference on Networks and Neighborhoods in Cyberspace at the Twin Cities branch campus of the University of Minnesota Morris, and I got to make an early morning drive there and a late afternoon drive back. Drive, drive, drive. It gets old. Especially on those mornings when it is -15°F (around -25°C for those of you who insist on more civilized measurements.) If you’ve seen the movie Fargo you know what the scenery is like: endless snow-covered fields, endless rows of posts for barbed-wire fences, a succession of teeny-tiny farm towns. There is one thing I watch for — and this is a measure of how boring the drive is — and that’s the anti-abortion signs.

[Read more…]

I keep telling them that I have a voice and face for blogging

It’s a bit of a switch from doing the Minnesota Atheists radio show last Sunday to what I’ll be doing on Thursday: I’ll be on the Jeff and Lee Christian talk radio program (they told me 4pm, but their schedule says 3; somewhere around there, anyway). Their guest is Geoffrey Simmons, and I’m supposed to “debate” him — he gets 5 minutes to present the evidence for ID, then I get 5 minutes to present the evidence for evolution, and then follows a 50 minute free-for-all.

I already told them the format wasn’t fair. I need weeks of air time just to summarize the evidence for evolution, while Simmons only needs nanoseconds of silence to cover the absence of evidence for his side. But we take what we can get.

By the way, the online poll you scamps ransacked is still up, and Hillary Clinton is still winning.